get_sends

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states only that it retrieves send levels, with no mention of side effects, permissions, error conditions, or safety (though it's likely read-only). This minimal disclosure leaves the agent with significant uncertainty.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the existence of an output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, it omits prerequisites like track existence or valid index, and does not indicate whether send values are floats or booleans. A minor gap but still functional.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The sole parameter track_index has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description adds value by linking it to 'for a track' and clarifying the result structure ('one send per return track'), compensating well for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves all send levels for a track, specifying 'one send per return track.' This provides a specific verb-resource pairing and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_send which writes, and get_routing_options which deals with routing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Description implies the tool is for reading send levels but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., set_send) or when not to use it. The context is clear but lacks explicit usage boundaries.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.